Dacanay vs Baker & McKenzie

Complaint:
Vicente Torres and 9 other lawyers were sought to enjoin from practicing law under the name of
Baker & McKenzie when in fact Baker and McKenzie is an alien law firm.
Defense:
Respondents (Torres and 9 others), aside from being members of Philippine Bar, are members of
Baker & McKenzie law firm.
Facts:
Atty Torres, the lawyer of H.E. Gabriel, sent a letter to Rosie Clurman for the release of 87
shares of Cathay Products International, Inc. The letter used the letterhead of Baker & McKenzie
which contains the names of the 10 lawyer-respondents. Atty Dacanay, lawyer of Clurman,
denied the liability and questioned the use of Baker & McKenzie in the letterhead.
Held:
Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot practice law in the Philippines.
The use of the name Baker & McKenzie constitutes a representation that being associated
with the firm they could render legal services of the highest quality to multinational business
enterprises and others engaged in foreign trade and investment. There is misrepresentation in the
case at bar because B&M is not authorized to practice law here; hence unethical.

Samonte v Gatdula
Complaint:
Atty Gatdula, while being a branch clerk, tried to convice Samonte to change his counsel
and tacitly offered his service by giving his calling card.
Defense:
It was Samonte who approached him, informing that she wants to change her counsel. He
was also asked if he could handle the case since he was recommended by a friend. Accordingly,
it was the friend of Samonte who gave the calling card of the law firm of “Baligod, Gatdula,
Tacardon, Dimailig and Celera.”
Facts:
In an ejectment case, a typographical error was committed which provided the wrong
address of the defendant. The mistake was rectified and the case was ruled in favor of the
plaintiff – case where Julieta Samonte (complainant) is an authorized representative of the
plaintiff. They subsequently filed a motion for execution but the judge ordered the temporary
restraining order.
When complainant went to inquire about the issuance of TRO, respondent Atty Rolando
Gatdula blamed her lawyer for committing error. He told her that if she wanted the execution to
proceed, she should change her lawyer and retain the law office of respondent. He subsequently
gave his calling card with the name “Baligod, Gatdula, Tacardon, Dimailig and Celera.”
The administrative case was set for hearing but the complainant did not appear despite
notice. The case was however heard based on attending evidences – i.e. calling card.
Held:
While he may not be actually and directly employed with the firm, the fact that his name
appears on the calling card as a partner in the law firm, the card clearly gives the impression that
he is connected with the said law firm. The inclusion or retention of his name in the professional
card constitutes an act of solicitation which violates RA. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees) which declares it unlawful for a public official or
employee to, among others to engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized
by the Constitution or law, provided that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with
official functions.
He was reprimanded for engaging in the private practice of law. He was also ordered to
cause the exclusion of his name in the firm name of any office engaged in the private practice of
law.
A.C. No. 3056. August 16, 1991
FERNANDO T. COLLANTES, Complainant, vs. ATTY. VICENTE C.
RENOMERON, Respondent.

FACTS:
Disbarment against Atty. Renomeron, Register of Deeds of Tacloban City.
Atty. Collantes, counsel for V& G Better Homes Subdivision, Inc. (V&G), filed an
administrative case against Atty. Renomeron, for the latter’s irregular actuations with regard to
the application of V&G for registration of 163 pro forma Deed of Absolute Sale with Assignment
(in favor of GSIS) of lots in its subdivision.
V&G complied with the desired requirements, however, Renomeron suspended the
registration of the documents pending the compliance of the former with their “special
conditions”, which was that V&G should provide him with weekly round trip ticket from Tacloban
to Manila plus P2,000.00 as pocket money per trip, or, in lieu thereof, the sale of respondent’s
Quezon City house and lot by V&G or GSIS representatives.
Renomeron formally denied the registration of the documents. He himself elevated the
question on the registrability of the said documents to Administrator Bonifacio (of the National
Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration-NLTDRA). The Administrator then resolved
in favor of the registrability of the documents.
Despite the resolution of the Administrator, Renomeron still refused the registration
thereof but demanded from the parties interested the submission of additional requirements not
adverted in his previous denial.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent register of deeds, as a lawyer, may also be disciplined by
the Court for his malfeasance as a public official?

HELD:
The Court ruled that Renomeron may be disciplined by the Court as public official for his
misconduct constituted a violation of his oath as a lawyer.
The lawyer's oath (Rule 138, Section 17, Rules of Court; People vs. De Luna, 102 Phil.
968), imposes upon every lawyer the duty to delay no man for money or malice. The lawyer's
oath is a source of his obligations and its violation is a ground for his suspension, disbarment or
other disciplinary action (Legal Ethics, Ruben E. Agpalo, 1983 Edition, pp. 66-67).
The Code of Professional Responsibility applies to lawyers in government service in the
discharge of their official tasks (Canon 6). As the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
Public Officials requires public officials and employees to process documents and papers
expeditiously and prohibits them from directly or indirectly having a financial or material interest
in any transaction requiring the approval of their office, and likewise bars them from soliciting
gifts or anything of monetary value in the course of any transaction which may be affected by
the functions of their office, the Code of Professional Responsibility forbids a lawyer to engage
in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct (Rule 1.01, Code of Professional
Responsibility), or delay any man's cause "for any corrupt motive or interest" (Rule 103).
A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession. (Rule 7.03, Code of
Professional Responsibility.)
This Court has ordered that only those who are "competent, honorable, and reliable"
may practice the profession of law (Noriega vs. Sison, 125 SCRA 293) for every lawyer must
pursue "only the highest standards in the practice of his calling" (Court Administrator vs.
Hermoso, 150 SCRA 269, 278).
The acts of dishonesty and oppression which Attorney Renomeron committed as a
public official have demonstrated his unfitness to practice the high and noble calling of the law
(Bautista vs. Judge Guevarra, 142 SCRA 632; Court Administrator vs. Rodolfo G. Hermoso, 150
SCRA 269).
Attorney Vicente C. Renomeron was disbarred from the practice of law and his name
was stricken off the Roll of Attorneys.

.
 32. Diana Ramos vs. Atty. Jose R. Imbang
AC No. 6788; August23, 2007

Facts : This case is about the disbarment or Suspension against Atty. JoseR. Imbang for multiple
violations of the Code of Profess ional Responsibility.
1992, Ramos sought the assistance of Atty. Imbang in filing civil andcriminal actions against the
spouses Roque and ElenitaJovellanos. She gave Imbang P8, 500 as attorney's fees but the latter issued
areceipt for P5,000 only.Ramos tried to attend the scheduled hearings of her cases againstthe
Jovellanoses. Imbang never allowed her to enter thecourtroom and always told her to wait
outside. He would thencome out after several hours toinform her that the hearing hadbeen cancelled
and rescheduled. This happened six times and foreach “appearance” in court, respondent charged
her P350.Ramos was shocked to learn that Imbang never filed any caseagainst the
Jovellanoses and that he was in fact employed in thePublic Attorney's Office (PAO)

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Imbang should be disbarred.

HELD: YES, as per SC’s decision Lawyers are expected to conduct themselves with honesty
and integrity. More specifically, lawyers in government service are expected to be more
conscientious of their actuations as they are subject to public scrutiny. They are not only members of the
bar but also public servants who owe utmost fidelity to public service.
The SC supported this with three explanations:
1. Code of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees Section 7(b)(2) of the Code of Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees provides Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. -- In
addition to acts and omissions of public officials and employees now prescribed inthe Constitution and
existing laws, the following constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public official and
employee and are hereby declared unlawful (b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto,
public officials and employees during their incumbency shall not (1) Engage in the private practice of
profession unless authorizedby the Constitution or law, provided that such practice will
notconflict with their official function. In this instance, Imbang received P5,000 from the
complainant andissued a receipt on July 15, 1992 while he was still connected with thePAO. Acceptance
of money from a client establishes an attorney-clientrelationship.
2. Revised Administrative Code Section 14(3), Chapter 5, Title III, Book V of the Revised Administrative
Code provides:oThe PAO shall be the principal law office of the Government in extending free
legal assistance to indigent persons in criminal, civil,labor, administrative and other quasi-judicial cases.
As a PAO lawyer, Imbang should not have accepted attorney's fees fromthe complainant as this was
inconsistent with the office's mission.
3. Code of Professional Responsibility Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:o
CANON 1. — A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION,OBEY THE LAWS OF THE
LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECTFOR THE LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES. Every lawyer is
obligated to uphold the law. This undertaking includesthe observance of the above-mentioned
prohibitions blatantly violated byImbang when he accepted the complainant's cases and
receivedattorney's fees in consideration of his legal services. Consequently, Imbang's acceptance of the
cases was also a breach ofRule 18.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility because
theprohibition on the private practice of profession disqualified him fromacting as Ramos'
counsel.

Cuenca vs CA
Complaint:
Edilberto Cuenca filed an appeal with SC a petition for new trial upon execution of a
sworn statement by his brother. He contends that the sworn statement is material in establishing
his innocence.
Defense (OSG):
The rule stands: that SC has no jurisdiction to entertain a motion for new trial on the
ground of newly discovered evidence, for only questions of fact are involved therein.
Facts:
Construction Development Corporation of the Philippines (CDCP) is affiliated to Ultra
International Trading Corp (Ultra).
Edilberto Cuenca, as appointed President of Ultra, was instructed by his brother Rodolfo
Cuenca (Pres of CDCP) to purchase various steel materials for CDCP. Inorder to deliver the said
materials, Edilberto obtained credit from Chinabank by presenting trust receipts payable to
CDCP. When the demand to pay was served, Edilberto has not complied thereby convicting him
for violation of Trust Receipts Law.
 After the conviction, Rodolfo executed an affidavit stating that Edilberto was merely
acting as an agent for CDCP. Furthermore, the affidavit contained an admission of responsibility
and that he will pay for the civil damages arising from trust receipts.
Held:
The Court decided to relax the procedural rule and granted the petition for new trial. The
decision was grounded on the affidavit which the Court considered as newly discovered
evidences and probably sufficient evidence to reverse the judgment of conviction.
Citing the case of Berger v US, prosecutors represent a sovereign "whose obligation to
govern impartially is compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore
in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.”
The case was ordered to be re-opened and remanded to the court a qou.

OMAR P. ALI vs. ATTY. MOSIB A. BUBONG

Facts: It appears that this disbarment proceeding is an off-shoot of the administrative case earlier filed by
complainant against respondent. In said case, which was initially investigated by the Land Registration Authority
(LRA), complainant charged respondent with illegal exaction; indiscriminate issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title
(TCT) No. T-2821 in the names of Lawan Bauduli Datu, Mona Abdullah, Ambobae Bauduli Datu, Matabae Bauduli
Datu, Mooamadali Bauduli Datu, and Amenola Bauduli Datu; and manipulating the criminal complaint filed against
Hadji Serad Bauduli Datu and others for violation of the Anti-Squatting Law. It appears from the records that the
Baudali Datus are relatives of respondent.

Issue: did atty. Bubong violate Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?

Held: yes , he did.

In the case at bar, respondent’s grave misconduct, as established by the Office of the President and
subsequently affirmed by this Court, deals with his qualification as a lawyer. By taking advantage of his office as
the Register of Deeds of Marawi City and employing his knowledge of the rules governing land registration for the
benefit of his relatives, respondent had clearly demonstrated his unfitness not only to perform the functions of a
civil servant but also to retain his membership in the bar. Rule 6.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility is
explicit on this matter. It reads:

Rule 6.02 – A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to promote or advance his private
interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his public duties.

Respondent’s conduct manifestly undermined the people’s confidence in the public office he used to occupy and
cast doubt on the integrity of the legal profession. The ill-conceived use of his knowledge of the intricacies of the
law calls for nothing less than the withdrawal of his privilege to practice law.
As for the letter sent by Bainar Ali, the deceased complainant’s daughter, requesting for the withdrawal of
this case, we cannot possibly favorably act on the same as proceedings of this nature cannot be “interrupted or
terminated by reason of desistance, settlement, compromise, restitution, withdrawal of the charges or failure of
the complainant to prosecute the same.” As we have previously explained in the case ofIrene Rayos-Ombac v. Atty.
Orlando A. Rayos

… A case of suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless of interest or lack of interest of the complainant.
What matters is whether, on the basis of the facts borne out by the record, the charge of deceit and grossly
immoral conduct has been duly proven. This rule is premised on the nature of disciplinary proceedings. A
proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not in any sense a civil action where the complainant is a plaintiff and
the respondent lawyer is a defendant. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress
for private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare. They are undertaken for
the purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official ministration of persons unfit to practice in them. The
attorney is called to answer to the court for his conduct as an officer of the court. The complainant or the person
who called the attention of the court to the attorney’s alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and has generally
no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper administrative of justice.
Olazo v. Dante Tinga
AM No. 10-5-7-SC-12/7/2010

FACTS:
This is a disbarment case against retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Dante
O. Tinga (respondent) filed by Mr. Jovito S. Olazo (complainant). The respondent is
charged of violating Rule 6.02, Rule 6.03 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility for representing conflicting interests.

The First Charge: Violation of Rule 6.02

In the complaint,the complainant claimed that the respondent abused his position as
Congressman and as a member of the Committee on Awards when he unduly interfered with
the complainant’s sales application because of his personal interest over the subject land.

The Second Charge: Violation of Rule 6.03

The second charge involves another parcel of land within the proclaimed areas belonging to
Manuel Olazo, the complainant’s brother. The complainant alleged that the respondent
persuaded Miguel Olazo to direct Manuel to convey his rights over the land to Joseph Jeffrey
Rodriguez.

The Third Charge: Violation of Rule 1.01

The complainant alleged that the respondent engaged in unlawful conduct considering his
knowledge that Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez was not a qualified beneficiary under Memorandum
No. 119. The complainant averred that Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez is not a bona fide resident of
the proclaimed areas and does not qualify for an award.

The complainant also alleged that the respondent violated Section 7(b)(2) of the Code of
Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees or Republic Act (R.A.) No.
6713 since he engaged in the practice of law, within the one-year prohibition period, when he
appeared as a lawyer for Ramon Lee and Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez before the Committee on
Awards.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent was engaged in the practice of law.

Whether or not respondent is liable under Rules 6.02, 6.03 and 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

RULING:

In Cayetano v. Monsod,we defined the practice of law as any activity, in and out
of court, that requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and
experience. Moreover, we ruled that to engage in the practice of law is to perform those
acts which are characteristics of the profession; to practice law is to give notice or
render any kind of service, which device or service requires the use in any degree of
legal knowledge or skill.
 “THE COMPLAINANT, TOO, FAILED TO SUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISH THAT
THE RESPONDENT WAS ENGAGED IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW. AT FACE
VALUE, THE LEGAL SERVICE RENDERED BY THE RESPONDENT WAS LIMITED
ONLY IN THE PREPARATION OF A SINGLE DOCUMENT. IN BORJA, SR. V.
SULYAP, INC.,WE SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED PRIVATE PRACTICE OF LAW AS
ONE THAT CONTEMPLATES A SUCCESSION OF ACTS OF THE SAME NATURE
HABITUALLY OR CUSTOMARILY HOLDING ONE’S SELF TO THE PUBLIC AS A
LAWYER.

All told, considering the serious consequences of the penalty of disbarment or

suspension of a member of the Bar, the burden rests on the complainant to present clear,
convincing and satisfactory proof for the Court to exercise its disciplinary powers. The
respondent generally is under no obligation to prove his/her defense, until the burden shifts to
him/her because of what the complainant has proven. Where no case has in the first place been
proven, nothing has to be rebutted in defense.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, we DISMISS the administrative case for violation

of Rule 6.02, Rule 6.03 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, filed
against retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Dante O. Tinga, for lack of merit.

Huysen vs Gutierrez
Complaint:
Atty Fred Gutierrez, an employee of BID, extorted an amount of US$20,000 from Gisela
Huysen. He convinced Gisela that such amount is needed to obtain permanent visa because the
receipt issued contain the letterhead of BID.
Defense:
The money was used as payment for services rendered for obtaining the permanent visa.
Also, the blame shall be shifted to late Atty Mendoza (an Immigration lawyer) because it was
him (Mendoza) who filed, processed and followed-up the visa.
Facts:
Gisela Huysen along with her 3 sons, who are all Americans, applied for Philippine visa.
Gutierrez advised them that a certain amount (US$20,000) must be deposited but which could be
withdrawn after one year. During the transaction, no official receipt was issued. After one year,
complainant demanded the return of money. Respondent tried to comply by issuing several
postdated checks but all were dishonored.
A complaint for disbarment was set but Atty Gutierrez did not appear as he was allegedly
out of the country to attend his client’s needs.
Held:
Said acts constitute a breach of Rule 6.02 of the Code which bars lawyers in government
service from promoting their private interest. Promotion of private interest includes soliciting
gifts or anything of monetary value in any transaction requiring the approval of his office or
which may be affected by the functions of his office.
Respondent’s conduct in office betrays the integrity and good moral character required
from all lawyers, especially from one occupying a high public office. A lawyer in public office is
expected not only to refrain from any act or omission which might tend to lessen the trust and
confidence of the citizenry in government; he must also uphold the dignity of the legal
profession at all times and observe a high standard of honesty and fair dealing. Otherwise said, a
lawyer in government service is a keeper of the public faith and is burdened with high degree of
social responsibility, perhaps higher than his brethren in private practice.
It bears stressing also that government lawyers who are public servants owe fidelity to the
public service, a public trust. As such, government lawyers should be more sensitive to their
professional obligations as their disreputable conduct is more likely to be magnified in the public
eye.
Gutierrez was disbarred and ordered to return the amount he received from complainant, with
legal interest.
PNB v Cedo

A.C. No. 3701

Ponente: J. Bidin
Date: March 28, 1995

Complainant: PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

Respondent: ATTY. TELESFORO S. CEDO

FACTS:
 Atty. Telesforo Cedo is the former Assistant Vice President of the Asset Management Group of
PNB, who is now the counsel of Milagros Ong Siy in a case against PNB. Complainant-bank
charged Atty Cedo with violation of Canon 5, rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which states that:
“A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept engagement or employment in
connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in said service.”

 PNB stated that while Atty Cedo was still employed in their bank, he participated in arranging sale of
steel sheets in favor of Mrs. Ong Siy for P200,000. He even “noted” the gate passes issued by his
subordinate, Mr. Emmanuel Elefan, in favor of Mrs. Ong Siy authorizing the pull-out of the steel
sheets from the DMC Man Division Compound.
 Similarly, Atty. Cedo already appeared as a counsel for Mr. Elefan in an administrative case against
PNB, but was disqualified by the Civil Service Commission.
 Atty. Cedo also became the counsel of Ponciano and Eufemia Almeda against PNB as they were
represented by the law firm “Cedo, Ferrer, Maynigo & Associates” (of which Cedo is one of the
Senior Partners). PNB added that while Atty Cedo was still with them, he intervened in the handling
of the loan account of the spouses.
 ATTY CEDO’s DEFENSE:
- Ong Siy case: He appeared as counsel for Mrs. Ong Siy but only with respect to the execution
pending appeal of the RTC decision. He did not participate in the litigation of the case before the
trial court.
- Almeda case: He never appeared as counsel for them. Only Atty. Pedro Ferrer of the said law
firm handled the case. He also added that the law firm was not of a general partnership. They
are only using the name to designate a law firm maintained by lawyers, who although not
partners, maintain one office as well as one clerical and supporting staff. They handle their
cases independently and individually.

ISSUE1:

Whether or not Atty. Cedo was guilty of violating Canon 6 – YES

HELD/RATIO1:

This case was referred to the IBP. Their findings are the ff:

- Ong Siy case: He was the counsel through the law firm and was fined by the court in the
amount of P1,000 for forum shopping.
- Almeda case: Atty Pedro Singson of PNB attested that in one of the hearings, Atty. Cedo was
present although he did not enter his appearance, and was dictating to Atty. Ferrer what to say
and argue before the court. He also admitted in one of the hearings that he was the partner of
Atty Ferrer.
-
IBP recommended suspension from the practice for 3 years. Cedo violated Rule 15.02 of the CPR, since
the client’s secrets and confidential records and information are exposed to the other lawyers and staff
members at all times.
There also was a deliberate intent to devise ways and means to attract as clients former borrowers of PNB
since he was in the best position to see the legal weaknesses of PNB. He sacrificed ethics in consideration
of money.

It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests, except by express conflicting consent of all concerned
given after a full disclosure of the facts.

DISPOSITIVE:

This Court resolves to suspend Atty Cedo from the practice of law for 3 years.

DOCTRINE:

DEFINITION:

NOTES:

Communications between attorney and client are, in a great number of litigations, a complicated affair,
consisting of entangled relevant and irrelevant, secret and well-known facts. In the complexity of what is
said in the course of dealings between an attorney and client, inquiry of the nature suggested would lead to
the revelation, in advance of the trial, of other matters that might only further prejudice the complainant's
cause. (Hilado v David)

In re: 2003 Bar Examinations Resolution

Complaint:
Atty Danilo de Guzman, assistant lawyer in the firm of Balgos & Perez, caused to leak
the Bar Exam questions in Mercantile law by furnishing his fraternity brods. The root cause of
the leak is the negligence of Atty Marcial Balgos (Bar Examiner in Mercantile Law) in the
preparation and safekeeping of his proposed questions for the bar exam in mercantile law.
Defense:
Atty Balgos (examiner) did not know how to operate a computer thus he relied on his
private secretary to use the password to open and close his computer. It was the same computer
where he entered the proposed questions. He also did not know that his computer is connected
via LAN to 16 computers.
Atty de Guzman, whose computer is connected to that of Atty Balgos, downloaded the
test questions in belief that they were quizzers for a book that Atty. Balgos might be preparing.
Facts:
On September 22, 2003, the day following the bar exam in Mercantile Law, a rumored
leakage reached the office of Justice Jose Vitug, Chairman of 2003 Bar Exam through his
secretary Rose Kawada. Rose got the information from Marlo Malagar (law clerk in the office of
J.Vitug). Malagar was informed by her friend Ma.Cecilia Carbajosa (a bar examinee from Xavier
Universtiy) that she received a copy of test questions but she did not pay attention to it because
no answers were provided (HAHAHA).
J.Vitug got the same copy given to Carbajosa and conducted an analysis whether it is the
same proposed questions provided by Atty Balgos (examiner in Mercantile Law). It was found
that, although there are slight changes, there has indeed happened a leakage. The Court decided
to hold another examination in Oct4 but numerous petitions and motions were filed voicing
strong reservations against it. The Court resolved to cancel the scheduled exam and to allocate
the 15% among 7 subjects.
The leaked test questions originated from the office of Atty Marcial O.T. Balgos, his
computer as the source. The culprit who stole or downloaded it from Atty Balgos’ computer
without the latter’s knowledge and consent, and who faxed them to other persons, was
Atty.Danilo de Guzman (legal assistant of Balgos). De Guzman voluntarily confessed the deed to
the Investigating Committee.
He revealed that he faxed the test questions, with the help of his secretary Reynita
Villasis, to his fraternity brods (Beta Sigma Lambda) namely Ronan Garvida, Arlan (whose
surname he could not recall) and Erwin Tan. In turn, Ronan Garvida faxed the test questions to
Betans Randy Iigo and James Bugain. Randy Iigo passed a copy or copies of the same questions
to another Betan Allan Guiapal, who gave a copy to the Most Illustrious Brother Ronald Collado
(Beta Sigma Lambda chapter at MLQU), who ordered the printing and distribution of 30 copies
to the MLQUs 30 bar candidates.
Held:
1. Danilo de Guzman was disbarred for grave dishonesty, lack of integrity, and criminal
behavior. 1. Danilo de Guzman was charged with criminal act of larceny. It was theft of
intellectual property; the test questions were intellectual property of Attorney Balgos,
being the product of his intellect and legal knowledge.
a. By transmitting and distributing the stolen test questions to some members of the
Beta Sigma Lambda Fraternity, possibly for pecuniary profit and to give them
undue advantage over the other examiners in the mercantile law examination, De
Guzman abetted cheating or dishonesty by his fraternity brothers in the
examination, which is violative of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, as well as Canon 7 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility.
b. De Guzman was guilty of grave misconduct unbecoming a member of the Bar. He
violated the law instead of promoting respect for it and degraded the noble
profession of law instead of upholding its dignity and integrity. His actuations
impaired public respect for the Court, and damaged the integrity of the bar
examinations as the final measure of a law graduates academic preparedness to
embark upon the practice of law.
2. Danilo de Guzman was also ordered to make written public apology and pay damages to
the Supreme Court for involving it in another bar scandal, causing the cancellation of the
mercantile law examination, and wreaking havoc upon the image of this institution.
Que vs Revilla
Complaint:
Atty Anastacio Revilla received a disbarment case for several and deliberate falsehood
before the court:
1. for fabricating an imaginary order issued by the presiding judge in open court
which allegedly denied the motion to dismiss filed by the respondents.
2. for abusing court procedures and processes by repeatedly filing petition for
annulment of judgment of MeTC and RTC and for raising the issue of lack of
jurisdiction when he knows for a fact that it is not the proper remedy.
3. for filing multiple actions and forum shopping. Apparently, he filed a petition for
annulment of judgment as he believed that decisions in the lower court are null
and void, when in fact he had already filed a motion for reconsideration.
4. for maligning the name of a fellow lawyer Atty. Catolico.
5. for representing himself as the counsel for The People when it fact, it is only OSG
who has the authority to do so.
Defense:
He acted in good faith in his dealings and his conduct was consistent with his sworn duty
as a lawyer to uphold justice and the law to defend the interests of his clients. He also claimed
that the disbarment case was filed because the complainant’s counsel had an axe grind against
him.
Facts:
Atty Anastacio Revilla, who proudly declares that he received rigid and strict training
from UP COL and who was before suspended for 6months for the same offense as in this case,
took over the cases of late Atty Catolico. One of these cases is the unlawful detainer case. During
the proceedings, Revilla made 5 attempts to shield his clients from the execution of the final
judgments of the lower court by filing subsequently and severally petitions for certiorari to
question the final judgment. To support his petition for annulment of judgment, Revilla attacked
the name and reputation of the late Atty Catolico and accused him of deliberate neglect, corrupt
motives and connivance for the adverse party.
However, the appellate court denied all his petitions.
Held: Anastacio Revilla was disbarred.
1. Revilla violated Canon 8. He was unfair for imputing wrongdoing to Atty. Catolico
without showing any factual basis therefor; he effectively maligned Atty Catolico, who is
now dead and unable to defend himself.
2. Revilla acted in bad faith. It is apparent from his misrepresentations and dubious
recourses aimed to thwart and obstruct the speedy and efficient administration of justice,
resulting in prejudice to the winning parties. The succession of cases he files shows a
desperation that negates the sincere and honest belief he claims; these are simply
scattershot means to achieve his objective of avoiding the execution of the unlawful
detainer judgment against clients.

While a lawyer owes absolute fidelity to the cause of his client, full devotion to his genuine
interest, and warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights, as well as the exertion of
his utmost learning and ability, he must do so only within the bounds of the law. He must give a
candid and honest opinion on the merits and probable results of his clients case with the end in
view of promoting respect for the law and legal processes, and counsel or maintain such actions
or proceedings only as appear to him to be just, and such defenses only as he believes to be
honestly debatable under the law. He must always remind himself of the oath he took upon
admission to the Bar that he will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false
or unlawful suit nor give aid nor consent to the same; and that he will conduct [himself] as a
lawyer according to the best of [his] knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to
the courts as to [his] clients. Needless to state, the lawyers fidelity to his client must not be
pursued at the expense of truth and the administration of justice, and it must be done within the
bounds of reason and common sense. A lawyers responsibility to protect and advance the
interests of his client does not warrant a course of action propelled by ill motives and malicious
intentions against the other party.

Good faith and bad faith: Definition

Good faith connotes an honest intention to abstain from taking unconscientious
advantage of another. Accordingly, in University of the East v. Jader we said that "[g]ood faith
 connotes an honest intention to abstain from taking undue advantage of another, even though the
forms and technicalities of law, together with the absence of all information or belief of facts,
would render the transaction unconscientious." Bad faith, on the other hand, is a state of mind
affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some motive of self-interest, ill will or for an
ulterior purpose. As both concepts are states of mind, they may be deduced from the attendant
circumstances and, more particularly, from the acts and statements of the person whose state of
mind is the subject of inquiry.

Zeta v Malinao
Complaint:
Felicisimo Malinao, a court interpreter, has been appearing in the municipal court of his
town like an attorney when he in fact he is not one. He also collects fees from his clients and
made it as a means of livelihood. Clearly, it is a case of unauthorized practice of law since he
was doing it as a regular practice and for a consideration.
He also committed falsification as he made it appear in his daily time record that he is
present when in fact he is not.

Defense:
His participation for defendants’ cause was gratuitous as they could not engage the
services of counsel by reason of poverty and the absence of one in the locality.

Facts:
Julio Zeta, complainant, who is said to be resident of Zumarraga, Samar but appears to be
a fictitious person, filed a dismissal case against Malinao for unauthorized appearance in court
and for committing falsification.
As testified by trial judges, Malinao has indubitably appeared as counsel in several
criminal and civil cases. Those appearances were recorded in their docket books.
Held:
The number of times that respondent acted as counsel under the above circumstances
indicate that he was doing it as a regular practice obviously for considerations other than pure
love of justice.
Clearly, respondent’s violations constitute illegal practice of law – appearing as counsel
in various municipal courts without permission of his superiors in violation of civil service rules
and regulations, falsified his time record of service by making it appear therein that he was
present in his office when in fact he is in municipal courts appearing as counsel, without being
member of bar.
Young vs Batuegas

Complaint:
Atty Ceasar Batuegas and Atty Miguelito Nazareno craftily concealed the truth by
alleging that their client (accused) had voluntarily surrendered to person in authority and was
under detention on December 13, 2000 while the record shows that the accused had only
surrendered on Dec14, 2000.

Defense:
On Dec 13, 2000, respondents brought the accused to NBI to voluntarily surrender. But
due to heavy traffic, they arrived at 2am the next day, hence the certificate indicated Dec 14.

Facts:
The respondents, upon learning that a warrant of arrest was issued against their client,
immediately filed the Manifestation with Motion for Bail. After filing, they fetched the accused
in Cavite and brought him to NBI office. Due to heavy traffic, they arrived in the office at 2am in
Dec14. Thus, the Certificate of Detention indicates that the accused only surrendered on Dec 14,
2000. This was however discovered by Atty Young. Hence, the petition.
Held:
A lawyer must be a disciple of truth. He swore upon his admission to the Bar that he will
do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court and he shall conduct himself as a lawyer
according to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as
to his clients. He should bear in mind that as an officer of the court his high vocation is to correctly
inform the court upon the law and the facts of the case and to aid it in doing justice and arriving at
correct conclusion. The courts, on the other hand, are entitled to expect only complete honesty
from lawyers appearing and pleading before them. While a lawyer has the solemn duty to defend
his clients rights and is expected to display the utmost zeal in defense of his clients cause, his
conduct must never be at the expense of truth.

They were suspended for 6 months